Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

California wasn't a great guinea pig for it, due to their building requirements concerning earthquakes.  Maybe it's a case study in what's the most expensive possible outcome could be. 

Regional loops with connections between each would be nice. 

No, California wasn't a great guinea pig for it because it's not needed and won't satisfy the primary travelers on that corridor.

It *should* be a perfect guinea pig. The LA metro (not counting San Diego) is >13M, and the Bay Area is just shy of 8M. There are strong economic and cultural ties between the two regions. 

Not counting San Diego, there are 5 major airports in the LA/OC metro and 3 major airports in the Bay Area metro. Most residents are therefore within a 30-40 minute commute to the airport. It's a 1 hr flight between the two, and the flight schedules between the two are frequent. 

HSR was projected to be expensive to ride. At least on par with air travel, if not more expensive. HSR was projected to take 3 hours to go from SF to LA, so it takes three times as long as air travel. 

That time differential is a killer to business travelers. If "time is money", getting to your destination 2 hours earlier means more time for productive meetings/work. And it shortens the round-trip... I have personally been on flights from SNA (Orange County) to SJC (San Jose) first thing in the morning to get to meetings, coming home that very evening, and several times sat next to the same person on my return flight that was on my outgoing. Can't do that with HSR. 

For pleasure travelers, the choice usually comes down to speed vs cost. If my wife and I were to go up to norcal for a long weekend of vacation, we'd probably fly rather than drive because the cost for two people is worth the time savings--possibly even including a rental car if we needed it up there. If we were to go up there with the kids? Definitely driving. Because taking 5 people in a car is efficient, whereas 5 people in either a plane or with HSR is very expensive.

So for pleasure travelers, there's no advantage in a slower trip than an airplane if it costs just as much, and the cost basically makes it prohibitive compared to driving if you need to save money. 

Even if it ever gets built, California HSR will be a failure because it is simultaneously worse than either air or car travel. Ridership numbers will be terrible.   

man I cant hardly wait to take a plane flight with no pilots

737 Max.

Instead of a HSR, why not try a human catapult? 

A better question is why so many people love the idea of HSR so much--or light rail--or rail in general?

What exactly is the draw? Why should we do it?

Some Americans would  like us to be more like Europe in nearly every respect, at least as they understand Europe to be.

My wife, born in Europe, thinks the opposite.  

I've driven rental cars extensively in Europe.  They tend to be better drivers, the test to get your DL is extensive.  The tolls on their intercity freeways are HIGH.

There are a couple traffic circles in Paris I advise avoiding if possible.

I've taken the TGV several times, it's not what I'd call "quaint".  It's nice.  It works for France.  It's expensive of course for the country.

Highly subsidized.  So, folks like me ride cheaply so it's competitive with planes by getting money from the taxpayer.

One advantage is that it dumps you out into the middle of your destination city, not 20 miles out where the airport would be.

Efficient, they are not. They cost more than flying, and take longer than driving.

That is my experience in the US.

I looked at Amtrack for a trip from Cleveland to Glacier Park and it was literally what you said:  More expensive than flying and slower than driving. 

We ended up driving for a multitude of reasons but part of it is that flights to Glacier are complicated and we needed lots of gear so just tossing our stuff in the car and driving was our best option.